Template:Did you know nominations/Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) and Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines), Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines)[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
  • ... that London Underground stations Paddington and Paddington are about 400 m apart on foot, but over 20 kilometres apart by train? The source is listed in a note on each article and is calculated using kilometerage data on distances between stations.

Created by DavidCane (talk). Self-nominated at 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

  • @DavidCane: I am going to review this in a moment, but since there are two articles in the hook you need to provide a second QPQ review.  MPJ-DK  16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am trying to figure out how much of this was split out from London Paddington station and how much is new text, it's not clear cut so I will be looking into this today before I do the rest of the review.  MPJ-DK  16:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay I am satisfied that it is not a straight copy job, and while there is some repetition there is more tham the required 1500 k of different text so we are good on that front.
  • MPJ-DK, any material included from a pre-existing article must be 5x expanded, unless it was just written (WP:DYKSG#A5): If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. There's also no indication in the article history or on the article talk page that material has been copied, and that needs to be addressed; WP:Copying within Wikipedia is a good place to find out what needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:BlueMoonset, I'm sorry I thought I was pretty clear right above your comment when I indicated that it did not look like a clear copy & past job when they were split out, there was obvious rewrites done so there was no "copying" - the comment onthe 1500 k was to the fact that some text was repeated in both articles (so only one would get credit as "new text") but that there was more than 1500 k of "non-overlapping" text that they both qualify. So yes I did do my due diligence on detecting copied text and I did not find anything beyond a phrase here and there.  MPJ-DK  16:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • MPJ-DK, ah, I see. I thought while there is some repetition there meant from the London Paddington station article mentioned in the previous comment (some repetition though not a straight copy job taking major chunks), and therefore repeated material subject to 5x, rather than new material duplicated between the two new articles, and thus only one could take credit when determining the 1500 minimum. Sorry I misunderstood the context. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) - New enough, long enough, no copyvio, sourced in the article and hook directly sourced since the hook is based on simple rail distance the source is fine. Image looks good and license is in order.
  • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) - New enough, long enough, no copyvio, sourced in the article and hook directly sourced since the hook is based on simple rail distance the source is fine. Image looks good and license is in order.
  • I did see a tag saying "needing US public domain" for two images, but right below it there are clear public domain tags. the QPQ is fine, but need a second one. Once a second one is provided I can approve this.  MPJ-DK  22:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a second review. With regards to how much of the text was repeated from the previous section in London Paddington station, I wrote the two nominated articles pretty much from scratch. Aside from a few words that inevitably appear from the previous section, the bits that were carried over were the infobox and succession box. --DavidCane (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Paddington_tube_station_(Bakerloo,_Circle_and_District_lines)_and_Paddington_tube_station_(Circle_and_Hammersmith_%26_City_lines)&oldid=770236628"